Popularly known as Alfie in Kenya’s film industry, former “Mother-in-Law” actor Alfred Munyua has lost a case in which he sought a lucrative compensation from Zuku pay-TV owner Wananchi Group. He accused the company of unlawfully using his image in an advertisement of a movie in which he features, without his consent.
Sometime in February 2025, Wananchi Group (Kenya) posted a commercial video advertisement on its official Facebook page featuring Munyua’s image to promote the movie Pwagu on its Zuku Swahili Channel 100. Munyua had not given consent for his image to be used in advertising the movie despite being one of Pwagu’s leading cast.
While the High Court found that Wananchi Group had indeed infringed on the renowned actor’s image and personality rights, it still went ahead to dismiss his case because he failed to first pursue redress through the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC).
The High Court found that Wananchi Group had indeed infringed on the renowned actor’s image and personality rights.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
The High Court stated Munyua should have exhausted the dispute-resolution mechanisms provided under the Data Protection Act before turning to it if dissatisfied with the outcome at the ODPC.
Justice Roselyn Aburili maintained that complaints arising from the unauthorised use of personal images fall within the framework of the Data Protection Act, which provides a specialised mechanism through the ODPC.
“There exist legal and statutory mechanisms which offer alternative dispute resolution avenues to address misuse of personal image rights, and the High Court will only intervene where such remedies prove inadequate, unavailable, or ineffective for constitutional enforcement,” Justice Aburili noted.
“The fact that the Petitioner (Munyua) claims constitutional violations does not eliminate the need to first exhaust resolution under the Data Protection Act. The Petitioner cannot bypass the primary statutory dispute resolution mechanism. The High Court is the final safeguard, but the petitioner must first explore statutory and administrative remedies.”
The decision came just a few months after the High Court upheld a Sh5 million general damages award to Kadi Media Limited, the production company behind the Pwagu. Kadi Media had successfully sued Wananchi in a separate suit over copyright infringement (for airing the film without consent) and was first awarded compensation by the Copyright Tribunal. Wananchi challenged the decision at the High Court and lost the appeal.
While Munyua, who has also starred in other notable TV shows and films such as Nafsi, First Grader, “Crime and Justice series”, may have lost his bid for compensation, the High Court gave him a significant victory on a question at the heart of Kenya’s increasingly important image-rights battles.
"Commercial exploitation"
Justice Aburili drew a clear line between an actor’s copyright interests in a film and his personal right to control the commercial use of his face, likeness and persona.
In the case, Munyua had argued that his case was not about copyright in the film in which he was cast, but about the unauthorised commercial exploitation of his image.
His lawyers argued that because the advertisement on Facebook featured Munyua’s likeness, the right to approve its commercial use belonged to him personally.
His agreement to act in Pwagu, they maintained, did not amount to handing over his image and personality rights to the film’s producer, Kadi Media Ltd.
In defence, Wananchi Group argued that Munyua had signed an assignment agreement transferring all copyright and related intellectual property rights in Pwagu to Kadi Media. Having surrendered those interests, it argued, he no longer had the legal standing to pursue a claim arising from the film.
But the court rejected that argument with Justice Aburili stating that under law there is a “clear distinction” between copyright in an audiovisual work and an individual’s image and personality rights.
While copyright protects creative expression embodied in a work such as Pwagu, she said, image rights protect personal attributes including a person’s name, face, likeness, voice and persona from unauthorised commercial exploitation.
The judge further noted that an actor who agrees to perform in a film gives the producer permission to use that performance within the film. But that agreement does not automatically give the producer or other third parties a free pass to use the actor’s face or image in unrelated commercial advertising.
In other words, appearing in a movie does not mean an actor has signed away the commercial rights to his face.
“An actor such as the Petitioner herein who contracts to perform in a film grants the producer the right to use their performance within that film,” Justice Aburili held. “That contract does not, as a matter of law, strip the actor of their inherent personality rights.”
She went further, holding that Munyua’s image rights were personal and could not simply be assigned to Wananchi Group by Kadi Media.
“The right to one’s image is a personal, non-transferable right grounded in human dignity and privacy,” the judge said, adding that Kadi Media could not assign Munyua’s identity to the broadcaster because it remained personally and constitutionally protected.
The court also dismissed Wananchi’s argument that the case amounted to double litigation because Kadi Media had previously pursued its own copyright claim before the Copyright Tribunal. The two disputes, Justice Aburili found, concerned different rights, with Kadi Media’s copyright interests in Pwagu on one hand, and Munyua’s personal image rights on the other.
For Kenya’s rapidly evolving film, advertising and influencer economy, the judgment now offers a lesson with a wider message that casting an actor may give a producer the right to use their performance in a production, but it does not automatically amount to a blank cheque for commercial use of the actor’s identity.
